PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ROGER
or ROGELIO PUEDAN, Appellant.

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J.:

By invoking the defense of
surprising his spouse in the very act of sexual intercourse with the victim,
the accused admits authorship of the killing.
Having waived his constitutional right to be presumed faultless, he now
bears the burden of proving his innocence.
Furthermore, his flight negates his self-righteous proclamation of being
the victim of in flagrante adultery.
Indeed, if what he claims is true, he should have reported the incident
to the authorities immediately, instead of hiding from them for over three
years.

The Case

Rogelio Puedan appeals the June
16, 1999 Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the City of
Malaybalay (Branch 8) in Criminal Case No. 7482-95, finding him guilty of
murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Rogelio
Puedan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery.
In the absence of any other aggravating
and/or a mitigating circumstance, accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the heirs of his victim
Florencio Ilar the sum of P50,000.00.2cräläwvirtualibräry

The Information3 dated June 20, 1995, charged appellant in these
words:

That on or about the 21st day of February, 1995, in the
morning, at Purok 2, [B]arangay Paitan, Municipality of Quezon, [P]rovince of
Bukidnon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with intent to kill [and] by means of treachery and
evident premeditation, armed with a sharp bladed instrument (flamingo), did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally attack, assault and stab
FLORENCIO ILAR, hitting and inflicting upon the latter the following, to wit:

- Multiple stab wounds

which caused the instant[an]eous death of
FLORENCIO ILAR, to the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of FLORENCIO
ILAR in such amount as may be allowed by law.4cräläwvirtualibräry

Upon his arraignment on June 9,
1998,5 appellant, assisted by his counsel,6 pleaded not guilty.
After trial in due course, the court a quo rendered the assailed
Decision.

The Facts

Version
of the Prosecution

In its Brief,7 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) presents
the prosecutions version of the facts as follows:

In the morning of February 21, 1995, Florencio Ilar, accompanied by
his six-year old grandson, Reymark Anthony Ilar, went to the house of Luceno
Tulo to buy a piglet.

Luceno Tulo was fashioning out a mortar (for pounding palay) near
his house when Florencio and his grandson arrived.

Florencio told Luceno that he wanted to buy a piglet from him.

Appellant Roger Puedan suddenly arrived and stabbed Florencio five
(5) times, first in the abdomen, with a sharp, pointed knife locally known as
plamingco.
Terrified of what he
witnessed, Luceno fled towards the house of his neighbor.
Young Reymark ran back to his parents house
and told his mother, Erlinda Ilar, what transpired.

Erlinda Ilar ran swiftly to Lucenos place but Florencio was
already dead when she arrived.
Florencio was bathed in his own blood and lying by the side of the rice
paddy.

The body of Florencio Ilar remained where it had fallen until the
arrival of the police later that day.8 (Citations
omitted)

Version of the
Defense

Appellant contends that he
deserves acquittal, because the killing falls under the exceptional
circumstance referred to in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code.
He claims to have surprised his spouse whom
he had caught in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person.
Appellant narrates his version of the facts
in the following manner:

The defense had a different version of the incident that led to
the death of Florencio Ilar.
To lay the
basis of the questionable character of the deceased[,] [t]he defense presented
the testimony of JENNEFER NADELA, who claimed that she was once a
househelp in the residence of the Ilars.
During her stay, which lasted only from July 1 to July 30, 1992, the
deceased used to fondle her private parts against her will.
The deceased likewise proposed an amorous
relationship with her, in exchange for some money, which she declined.

Corroborative of the testimony of Nadela, anent the character of
the deceased, was the testimony of witness VINESA QUINTERO.
Quinteros father and the deceased were
drinking buddies.
Sometime in December
1982, when she took her vacation at her parents house, her father and
Florencio Ilar had a drinking session.
When the duo were through drinking, she washed the drinking glasses of
their kitchen.
Florencio Ilar, however,
followed her inside the kitchen and without warning embraced and kissed
her.
Ilar then proposed that they go
outside in exchange for some amount of money.
She declined the proposition.
The incident was repeated during the next weekend when her father and
Ilar had another drinking session.
The
witness likewise averred that she heard one of Florencio Ilars
daughter-in-law, Erlinda, confiding to her mother that Florencio Ilar was a sex
maniac, who was bent on molesting her.

LEAH PUEDAN, the wife of the accused, admitted having
an illicit relationship with the deceased, Florencio Ilar.
The illicit relationship had been going on
for two years and was known in their barangay, except her husband.
On February 21, 1995, at about 8:00 oclock
in the morning, Florencio Ilar came to their house, while she was breastfeeding
her child, and was looking for her husband, Roger Puedan.
When she retorted that Roger was out putting
the carabao in a shade, Florencio then suggested that they have a quick sexual
intercourse, and ordered her to remove her skirt and panty, while also
undressing himself.
While they were
having sex, Roger suddenly appeared and was stunned by what he saw.
Roger then struck Florencio with his bolo
and the two men grappled with each other.
She then gathered her young child and ran away from the house.

Accused ROGER PUEDAN, testifying on his behalf,
averred that Florencio Ilar was one of the patrons in the ricefields [where] he
works. As such patron, Florencio usually [brought] him wine and pulutan
which they partook at his house.
On
February 21, 1995, at around 8:00 oclock in the morning, he brought his
carabao to a shade.
Upon his return, he
heard some noises emanating from their bedroom. His curiosity aroused, he went inside the room and found the
already undressed Florencio having sexual intercourse with his wife.
Shaken and dumbfounded by the revelation, he
shouted invectives upon the copulating pair and found a bolo to stab them.
The first thrust was parried by Florencio,
who grappled for the bolo and wrestled with him. As they wrestled with each other, they fell to the ground, and
his hand was freed from the grip of Florencio.
He then stabbed Florencio and hit him on the stomach.
He then proceeded upstairs in search of his
wife, who had already fled.9 (Citations
omitted)

Ruling of the Trial
Court

The RTC opined that the
prosecution witnesses were straightforward and candid in relating the
incident.10 Moreover, [n]o motive has been shown, and the court
did not find any, why they would fabricate a story.11 They were able to establish the fact that appellant
suddenly stabbed Florencio Ilar, who was then buying a piglet outside Luceno
Tulos house.

One of the investigating
policemen, SPO4 Antonio B. Inihao, testified that they found Florencios body slumped
lifeless on a rice paddy near Tulos house.
This fact, according to the trial court, belied the claim of appellant
that it was outside his house where he had killed Florencio. The body remained
where it had fallen, unmoved and untouched, until the policemen arrived a few
hours later.
It was properly clad in a
shirt and a pair of buttoned pants.
Had
appellant really surprised his wife having sexual intercourse with him,
Florencio would not have had the opportunity to put on and button up his pants,
parry the immediate bolo thrust of appellant then grapple with him.

Appellant thereafter fled and was
finally arrested on March 16, 1998, or about three years after the
killing.
The trial court observed that
his flight was a strong indication of his guilt.

Conformably, the RTC overruled the
contention of appellant that the killing should be treated under Article 247 of
the Revised Penal Code.
It further
said that treachery qualified the killing to murder.

The court a quo gravely erred in
finding the accused guilty of the crime of murder despite the clear failure of
the prosecution to establish the particulars leading to the stabbing incident.13cräläwvirtualibräry

In short, appellant argues that
(1) Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code should be applied in his favor, and
(2) treachery should not be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.

The Courts Ruling

The appeal has no merit.

First Issue

Exceptional
Circumstance

By raising Article 247 of the
Revised Penal Code as his defense, appellant admits that he killed the victim.
This provision reads as follows:

ART. 247.
Death or
physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. Any legally
married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the
act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical
injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. x x x

By invoking this defense,
appellant waives his right to the constitutional presumption of innocence and
bears the burden of proving the following:

1. That a legally
married person (or a parent) surprises his spouse (or his daughter, under 18
years of age and living with him), in the act of committing sexual intercourse
with another person.

2. That he or she kills
any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious physical
injury in the act or immediately thereafter.

3. That he has not
promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he
or she has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.14cräläwvirtualibräry

To satisfy this burden, appellant
must prove that he actually surprised his wife and Florencio in flagrante
delicto, and that he killed the man during or immediately thereafter.
However, all that appellant established was
Florencios promiscuity, which was inconsequential to the killing.
What is important is that his version of the
stabbing incident is diametrically opposed to the convincing accounts of Prosecution
Witnesses Luceno Tulo, Reymark Anthony Ilar, Erlinda Ilar and Policeman Inihao.

Appellant assails the credibility
of the prosecution witnesses by alleging that Tulo was not at the crime scene
when the stabbing occurred.
Without
elaborating on the particulars that led to the incident, appellant claims that
Reymark and Erlinda merely underscored the fact that Florencio had been
stabbed.
Thus, appellant argues that
these witnesses were not able to contradict his defense.

Well-settled is the rule that the
evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best
undertaken by the trial court, because it had the opportunity to observe them
firsthand and to note their demeanor and conduct on the witness stand.
For this reason, its findings on such
matters, absent any arbitrariness or oversight of facts or circumstances of
weight and substance, are final and conclusive upon this Court and will not to
be disturbed on appeal.15cräläwvirtualibräry

In this case, the RTC found the
prosecution witnesses to be credible and convincing. It observed that Tulo, Reymark and Erlinda were candid and
straightforward in relating their versions of the stabbing incident.
Tulo narrated that he was outside his house
fashioning a mortar when Florencio -- accompanied by his then five-year-old
grandson, Reymark -- arrived in order to buy a piglet. Standing about a meter
away, Tulo recounted that appellant suddenly appeared and stabbed Florencio on
the abdomen with a knife.
Tulo
testified thus:

Q Yes, you said that Roger
Puedan stabbed Florencio Ilar, did you see him [stab] Florencio Ilar?

A That was the time when I
turned my head as I was making a mortar.

Q You mean, that was the
time you saw Puedan [stab] Ilar?

A Yes.

Q Now, at the time you
were making a mortar, where was this incident [happening], at your front, at your
back or at your side?

A On my side. (Witness
referring to his right side).

Q How far were you [from]
them when this incident happened?

A Just more than a meter.

COURT: (to witness)

Q You mean, while
Florencio Ilar was there to buy [a] piglet you continued to work on your
mortar?

A Yes, Your Honor.

Q Before Roger Puedan
actually stabbed Florencio Ilar, did you see him coming?

Reymark at first stated in his
testimony that, before being stabbed, his grandfather had not been able to talk
to Tulo.
From the boys statement,
appellant concludes that Tulo was not at or even near the crime scene.21 This inconsistency was clarified when the trial court
again questioned Reymark, who this time stated that his grandfather had indeed
been able to see Tulo on that fateful morning.22 As posited by the prosecution, such inconsistency in
the testimony of Reymark may be explained by the fact that he was very young
when the incident happened -- only five years of age -- and was still very young
when he testified on the witness stand three years later.
Nonetheless, it was established that he and
his grandfather were at Tulos place to buy a piglet, that the boy himself saw
his Lolo stabbed by appellant, and that Tulo was there but disappeared
immediately after the first knife thrust.

Even assuming arguendo that
Tulo was not at the crime scene, Reymarks testimony is sufficient to prove
that appellant actually stabbed Florencio.

Appellant further alleges that
Erlinda, who was the first to arrive at the locus criminis, did not see
Tulo anywhere.
This allegation,
however, is consistent with the testimony of Tulo that he ran to his neighbors
house right after the first knife thrust.

Furthermore, the physical evidence
shows that Florencio lay dead near Tulos -- not appellants -- house.
Erlinda testified that his body remained
unmoved and untouched where it had fallen until the policemen came.23 In addition, SPO4 Antonio Inihaos testimony on the
attendant circumstances inspires belief.
He testified that the body lay 80 meters away from appellants house and
only about 15 meters away from Tulos.24 This statement contradicts the claim of appellant
that he and Florencio grappled outside the formers house, where the latter
fell and was subsequently killed.

When found, the body of Florencio
was fully clothed in a shirt and a pair of pants, all its buttons intact.25 We agree with the RTC that had the victim been caught
by surprise while engaged in the sex act, he would not have had the opportunity
to put on his pants, parry the forthcoming bolo thrusts, and then grapple with
appellant.

Appellants
Flight

Further eroding the defense of
appellant is the fact that he immediately fled from the crime scene right after
the stabbing incident.
He hid for about
three years26 until he was arrested by the authorities on March 16,
1998.27 His flight betrays his defense, because he could have
easily relayed his story to the proper authorities, if he had indeed caught his
wife and Florencio in flagrante delicto.

Through flight, one impedes the
course of justice by avoiding arrest, detention, or the continuance of criminal
proceedings.28 As with self-defense, the exceptional circumstance
provided under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code may not prevail in the
face of the flight of appellant from the crime scene and his failure to inform
the authorities of the incident.29 Flight bespeaks guilt and gives credence to the
version of the prosecution in this case.30

Second Issue

Treachery

Similarly without merit is
appellants contention that treachery did not attend the killing.
For treachery to be present, the means,
methods or forms of execution should give the person attacked no opportunity
for self-defense or retaliation.
And it
must be proven that such means, methods or forms of execution were deliberately
and consciously adopted without danger to appellant.31cräläwvirtualibräry

In the present case, the RTC
correctly ruled that treachery attended the killing. Appellant came from nowhere and suddenly stabbed the unsuspecting
Florencio five (5) times.
He
deliberately and consciously adopted his mode of attack by lunging at the
victim with his knife without any warning whatsoever, giving the latter no
opportunity to defend himself.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed
Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.